netdev - Re: [RFC] GTSM for IPv6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20100321.201608.124071215.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	pekkas@...core.fi
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] GTSM for IPv6

From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:02:48 +0200 (EET)

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> Also RFC doesn't explicitly address GTSM on IPV6.
>> Maybe the RFC editors think the problem will magically no longer exist
>> in IPv6 world because everyone will be using IPsec.
> 
> Hmm. When I was editing the RFC, I seem to have put in some text about
> IPv6 (i.e. difference in TTL vs Hop Count naming).  As far as I know,
> there is no other difference :-)
> 
> In IPV6_MIN_HOPS hops would seem to point toward the "number of hops"
> which is logically the opposite: 255-$value.  So maybe
> IPV6_MIN_HOPCOUNT is better. But I can live with it either way :-)

Stephen, make whatever decision your deem appropriate about
the name and resubmit this for net-next-2.6, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html